1986 AMNESTY LAW IS SEEN AS FAILING TO SLOW ALIEN TIDE

Published: June 18, 1989

(Page 2 of 2)

At those hearings Alan C. Nelson, Commissioner of the I.N.S., argued that a steady decline in the number of people apprehended trying to cross the border ''continues to demonstrate that the law is working and employer sanctions are having the intended effect of reducing illegal immigration.''

But the immigration service is now virtually alone in asserting that the sanctions have substantially cut the flow of illegal immigrants. Mr. Nelson has said repeatedly that the number of people apprehended on the border has dropped at a rate of 40 percent a year since the law went into effect. But many scholars dispute Mr. Nelson's statistics. Some researchers believe sanctions on employers have cut the flow, but not by 40 percent, and other experts argue the sanctions have had no effect at all.

The effects of the law are illustrated in the experiences of two recent illegal immigrants.

A 30-year-old woman from El Salvador said that in February 1988 she left home to live illegally in Texas in part because ''my cousin got papers under the amnesty, and so she was able to help me with money and a place to stay and generally in getting around.'' But as a result of the law, she said, ''there is no way to get a good job, because they always ask for your papers.''

The woman, a secretary in El Salvador, cleans houses in Houston, and although she would like better work here, she said she had no desire to return to the poverty and political violence of her homeland. ''Yes,'' she said, ''it is more difficult to get here and earn money now, but people still do it.'' Like other illegal aliens interviewed, she asked not to be identified. A Family Asunder

In the case of another woman from El Salvador, the law had contradictory effects. She arrived here in 1981, qualifying for the amnesty, but her five children, now 10 to 18 years old, arrived too late to be legalized. ''It is a great worry for me,'' she said, ''because my two oldest have graduated from American high school. Their home is with me here, but they cannot get real jobs. What is their future?'' According to the immigration service, 3.5 million to 4 million illegal aliens live in the United States on an established basis, as against 6.5 million to 7 million before passage of the 1986 law.

The drop is accounted for by the number of applicants for the amnesty programs. In effect, the amnesty divided illegal immigrants into those who were suddenly legalized and those who were not, but it did not physically separate these people.

The immigration service expects that a vast majority of amnesty applicants will receive permanent status as legal residents. If they then become citizens after a five-year waiting period, they will be able to get legal status for their spouses and children. The Men Were First

In the meantime, however, the law has created a new and growing category of illegal alien: the relatives of amnesty applicants. Noting that nearly 70 percent of the amnesty applicants are men, Nestor Rodriguez, a sociologist at the University of Houston, said: ''Usually, the men were the first to migrate, and so more of them qualified for the amnesty. Many woman and children who followed along later did not qualify, and certainly the men who were here alone and got papers are now bringing in their families illegally.''

The effect of the amnesty on illegal immigration goes beyond relatives, however. ''Illegal immigrants have a long history of following well-established routes,'' said Mr. Castillo, ''and the amnesty program gave those routes a little more solidity. Now, instead of relying on other illegals, a new arrival is likely to know people here who are legal and can offer help with all kinds of things. It's my guess that it will take a generation to break those ties.''

Mr. Cornelius of the University of California at San Diego conducted extensive surveys of three rural Mexican communities and has concluded, ''There has been no significant return flow of illegals who suddenly found themselves jobless in the United States.'' In the short term at least, he said, the 1986 law ''may have kept more Mexicans in the United States than it has kept out'' because it granted some kind of amnesty to about 3.1 million people.

Although immigration experts agree that the prohibition on hiring undocumented workers has made it more difficult for illegal aliens to find work here, they differ widely on how much the sanctions on employers have reduced the flow across the border. Arrest Rates Are Debated

Much of the debate over the rate of illegal immigration centers on statistics for the apprehension of aliens along the Southern border because the immigration service uses these figures to support its assertion that the sanctions have been effective.

Almost all experts dismiss the immigration service view that proof of decreased flow lies in the 40 percent drop in apprehensions each year since 1986. The agency's critics say the number of Border Patrol agents assigned to watch the border also decreased markedly in that time, and so fewer apprehensions were inevitable.

Also, it is argued that since 1986 the agents remaining on the border have spent more time tracking down drug smugglers, another reason why a decline in apprehension would not necessarily mean there was a drop in the flow of illegal aliens. Yet other researchers insist that a substantial part of the decline in apprehensions is explained by the fact that most of the 3.1 million amnesty applicants can move across the border as they have for years but do it legally.

Chart of breakdown of legalization applicants and agricultural workers by gender, type of work, age, and state they applied in (Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service) (pg. 24)